Crossing the Line

I take it as an article of faith that most of what you find on television today is crap. Most of it. There are shows worth watching out there- some of them critical acclaimed, some of them swept under the rug by the snobbish Hollywood elites. But by and large, there's a lot of crap on television.

So it's always a pleasant surprise when you find yourself watching television that is tackling an issue that is incredibly sensitive- and doing so in a thorough, nuanced and generally even-handed way. The issue: sexual harassment. The show: JAG.

JAG continues to surprise me. I never watched it regularly when it was on the air, resorting instead to falling back on the occasional episode on those slow mornings that found me at a loose end in front of the television, desperate to avoid soaps. The USA Network and JAG would always kill an hour in an entertaining way. And it was a good- and unique show. The genre of 'military courtroom drama' is one that is hardly the most crowded of demographics, so that made it different. But the attention to detail and research (not to mention the sometimes cheesy, early 90s special effect inserting actual footage of various Presidents and leaders into the show) is impressive. JAG, which I've started to watch more closely recently, is a show very aware of what year it is- the military of JAG is still wrestling with the issue of women in combat and still reeling from the sexual harassment scandals (OK. Make that 'Scandal' singular. Tailhook is very much remembered by this show) that shook the armed services in the 90s.

It takes you awhile to realize it, but when both male and female characters occasional steer the conversation away from risque conversational topics by saying 'RED LIGHT' or 'GREEN LIGHT' it takes you awhile to figure out what they're doing and why they're doing it. (A verbal tool employed by the armed services, I guess, to indicate when conversational topics are approaching uncomfortable and prickly areas. Hence- RED LIGHT=change the subject.)

And of all the shows on television, the one place you'd least expect to find a quiet strain of feminism is JAG. Yet, there, lurking in the corner is feminism. The female lead, Mac, played ably by Catharine Bell is a tough minded career Marine Major, who knows all too well what it takes to get ahead in the military. The male lead, Harm (David James Elliot) flips back and forth between attitudes portrayed as 'typical boys club' military thinking to atypical, more nuanced views that firmly line up behind doing what's right.

Early on in the second season, this all collides brilliantly in an episode entitled 'Crossing the Line.' The title refers to an apparent (I'm assuming they did the research on this one) naval tradition of 'initiating' new recruits the first time a ship crosses the equator- the 'tradition' resembles little more than a mild fraternity hazing- and if it's portrayal is anything close to accurate, then there are frat houses out there that do far, far worse.

But there's a twist: this time around, a female pilot accuses the CAG (Combat Air Group) commander of sexual harassment. What follows was probably the most thought-provoking, careful, nuanced- and above all entertaining hour of television I had ever seen. Mac and Harm are dispatched with their trust sidekick Bud to the aircraft carrier to investigate this complaint. Admirals in Washington are all over this- and soon, a high level Congresswoman, critic of the Navy and champion of women in the armed services is dispatched to take stock.

The female pilot gives an eloquent account of her feelings of humiliation at having jello rubbed in her hair, being forced to dance with another female officer, being poked and prodded in the buttocks with pitchforks and being dunked into 'the tank of truth and justice' which seems to be a tank of sewer water or something equally unpleasant. Mac is firmly on the side of the pilot while Harm shrugs it off as part of naval tradition.

Things change quickly: we find out from the Chief of the Boat (MC for this little tradition) that everyone was treated absolutely equally, regardless of gender. The other major female character involved in the ceremony (a backseat flyer- an RIO) agrees that everyone was treated equally. This throws Mac for a loop and backs up Harm's point of view- but it is the female RIO that probably delivers the moral of the story: 'Sometimes a woman has to give up some of what it means to be a woman in order to fit in with the guys. And sometimes it sucks.'

The obvious question: is that right? Is that OK? Why do women need to 'fit in with the guys?' Granted, the military is very much a boy's club, so it'll be a struggle for any woman to get ahead, but should they have to sacrifice a fundamental part of what it means to be a woman, just for the sake of fitting in with everyone? It's worth noting that in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, we were forced to do a linguistic dance with the Saudis- who objected to women being allowed to drive on their soil. 'Women' wouldn't be driving, they were told. 'American Soldiers' would be. Wouldn't that be the ideal the military would want to achieve? Not male soldiers and female soldiers, but just plain soldiers (or sailors, marines- whichever applies?) Such an ideal surely has been pushed before when the Armed Services were integrated on the basis of color, so why not on the basis of gender?

The CAG against which the complaint has been filed is undoubtedly a hardass. Perhaps even a fossil- even inappropriately so. But his position is crystal clear. He has standards for his pilots- high ones (especially given how insane it is just thinking about what's required to land a very large plane, going very fast on a very small runway in the middle of the ocean)- and those standards he will not compromise. Everyone has to meet the same standard. The female pilot was grounded because she had a couple of bad landings and was not meeting the expected standards.

This raises another question: should there be different standards for women? Such an idea seems both inevitable and anti-feminist. Inevitable, because basic biological gender differences mean that women and men achieve different standards of physical fitness at different rates. You only have to look at the differences in times at the Olympics to realize that. There are fast woman and fast men- but they don't compete against each other. Yet it also seems anti-feminist, because feminism seems to call for an end to gender bias and differences- and at the very core of this debate is a simple fact: if women are expected to succeed in the armed services, wouldn't it be in their benefit to show the boys they can take their standards and meet and beat them?

At the end of the day, JAG seems to settle on the ideal of aiming for a gender blind military where there are no men, no women, but just soldiers, sailors, marines and pilots. The hardass CAG is forced to send the female pilot he grounded out on patrol (in order to assuage the Congresswoman) and he sends the female RIO along to back her up. (The female pilot and the RIO don't like each other- the RIO feels that the pilot looks to blame everyone but herself for her mistakes.) Tragically, the CAG's judgment is proved correct. The female pilot blow her night landing on the carrier and crashes her plane- which bursts into flame. The female RIO ejects at the last minute (is saved by the always heroic Harm) and earns the respect (which she already had) of the CAG- she is undeniably one of the boys.

The underlying message of the show is an interesting one. As I've already said, JAG does seem to line up behind the idea that the military should be gender blind and everyone should play on an equal footing. I was somewhat uncomfortable about the idea of the female pilot being killed off in the show, but it just serves to reinforce the underlying point: the military is a serious business and standards have to be high, because even if you're on a routine flight, mistakes in their line of work can cost lives. Why should that ideal be softened because of someone's gender? Should it? Ultimately, it feels like the question is essentially unresolved however: there is an interesting contradiction being played out- on the one hand, gender blindness seems to be the ideal that the show lines up behind. But on the other hand, there's that quietly devastating remark by the female RIO that still lingers: in order to fit in with the guys, women do have to sacrifice just a little of what it means to be a woman.

Is that right? Should we- or women, for that matter be OK with that? That particular question is never really resolved, but the fact of the matter is that JAG takes the view that a gender blind military would be the ideal, but is also pragmatic enough to recognize that such an ideal has a price for all concerned. For women, the things they have to do to 'fit in' in such a male-dominated business. For the men and the COs, the pressure they feel to compromise high standards on the basis of gender and the hard truth that a male-dominated culture has to somehow, someway, adapt to change.

All in all, it was incredible well done- the most thought-provoking 45 minutes of television I have ever seen. If you haven't taken a closer look at JAG, even though it's off the air now- whip out the Netflix and give it a shot. It may just surprise you- because it sure as heck surprised me.